Community

tao_alexis, your premise however is flawed, because as I have stated before the logical opposite of this is as best only random encounters and at worse nothing happens at all. Everythign that a DM puts into a game is tainted in this manner, even using random encounter tables unless random encounter is used for random levels. (ie the Players at level 1 find a cave that could contain goblins or an anceitn red dragon) On some level the Dm is artificially predetermining events no matter what.

The Colonists example you give is also flawed, history shows this and you only need to look at Canada vs the US to see that, As both existed under the same colonial rulers at the same era, and despite an attempt by one to "liberate" the other. Not only did the colonists submit to the "moral" authority of colonial rule, but they faught like hell against overwhelming force to defend it in the war of 1812 and 200 years later Canada's head of state is the Queen of England.

The very existance of the fork in the road is put there specifically by the DM, so is no different then an encounter put somewhere specifically be the DM, so the premise of the ethical debate is flawed from the start,

Feb 1, 2013 -- 12:54PM, Fardiz wrote:

I would happily rip that reply into several pieces but if you want to make it one responce, I am happy to do that.

You can have your way I will have mine. You will set up your way as the paragon of virue for DMs every. I disagree that your way would improve most games and so I gave counter points and reasoning behind my arguments.

Hypothetical arguments are perfectly fine in the realms of philosophy but when you are actually giving information to an audience who you hope will take it on board, your argument would be better off grounded in the real world.

Very nicely put.

D&D is like potato salad. Everyone has their own recipe.

@YagamiFire:  Thank you, I try to keep an open mind and realize that people aren't out to get you even if they are defending a position that is opposite from your own, and are very "Passionate" in their discussion.

I look forward to seeing the new thread and the friend request.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 12:42PM, tao_alexis wrote:

Quoting the original link and pointing out that the material therein is not being addressed, but is being demonstrated, is not a sidestep.  That is a false reinterpretation.

Quite the contrary. The question was, "Condescending much?".

A simple yes would have sufficed.

You get what you earn, as well, tao.  You've made a fine show of dismissing most everything anyone has said.  You've obfuscated, side-stepped, reinterpreted, redefined, inserted arguments and straw men into your replies and done your outstanding best to justify your position with the the worst sort of rhetoric.  Which, it is plainly clear, you will continue doing.

And this might get your goat a bit, but I can be condescending, too. It's a personal flaw, I am sad to admit, but I'm working on it. 1st step - Admit you have a problem.

At any rate, I read the article. Thought-provoking. Never knew that making a game interesting for my players was so controversial, even unethical.

I feel like a rebel! A real Bad boy!

I know disingenuous when I see it, tao. I don't need to resort to the rhetoric of logic to know b.s. when I see it.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 1:31PM, Sir_Joseph_the_Crowe wrote:

Feb 1, 2013 -- 12:42PM, tao_alexis wrote:

Quoting the original link and pointing out that the material therein is not being addressed, but is being demonstrated, is not a sidestep.  That is a false reinterpretation.

Quite the contrary. The question was, "Condescending much?".

A simple yes would have sufficed.

You get what you earn, as well, tao.  You've made a fine show of dismissing most everything anyone has said.  You've obfuscated, side-stepped, reinterpreted, redefined, inserted arguments and straw men into your replies and done your outstanding best to justify your position with the the worst sort of rhetoric.  Which, it is plainly clear, you will continue doing.

And this might get your goat a bit, but I can be condescending, too. It's a personal flaw, I am sad to admit, but I'm working on it. 1st step - Admit you have a problem.

At any rate, I read the article. Thought-provoking. Never knew that making a game interesting for my players was so controversial, even unethical.

I feel like a rebel! A real Bad boy!

I know disingenuous when I see it, tao. I don't need to resort to the rhetoric of logic to know b.s. when I see it.

+1.

I don't need to devolve into a condescending, insulting ramble just to get views on my website.  I don't need to insult the reader when I try to forward my thoughts or opinions.

I find your "way" to be lazy.  I find it lazy to only be able to make people react by insulting them, by attacking them.  Instead of being a positive influence in someones daily life, you chose to be a negative one.  Yagami is fond of saying there's a desease on these boards ever since he first started posting.  I firmly believe the only desease are people like Yagami and Tao who broad stroke hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people into one group and call them ethical failures (among other slander).  That's the real problem.  When a thread is created and the OP is full of negativity and attacks against anyone who believes differently...  It's no wonder that it then devolves into flame wars.  These threads should be stopped as soon as they pop up.  If you can't even be pro-active enough to make that small effort, then you shouldn't get to spew it and spread that negativity to other members of the boards.